Sound speeds vision through preparation, not integration

No metrics data to plot.

The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.

The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.

The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on
BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an
institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform
automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the
Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a
favorably uniform low price.

People respond faster to a visual target stimulus when it is accompanied by a task-irrelevant tone. This intersensory facilitation effect is often attributed to multisensory integration, but here we show it to be a reflection of temporal preparation. According to this view, the more rapidly processed tone serves as a warning signal (S1), which initiates preparation for the more sluggish visual target (S2). To test this view, we varied the delay between S1 and S2 in conjunction with the modality of S1 (auditory or visual). For brief delays, responses to S2 were faster when S1 was auditory than when it was visual. Crucially, however, this intersensory facilitation effect disappeared after a simple correction for the difference in S1-detection time, equating the effective preparation period. The obtained audio-visual equivalence shows that sound speeds response to a visual target through preparation, not integration.

People respond faster to a visual target stimulus when it is accompanied by a task-irrelevant tone. This intersensory facilitation effect is often attributed to multisensory integration, but here we show it to be a reflection of temporal preparation. According to this view, the more rapidly processed tone serves as a warning signal (S1), which initiates preparation for the more sluggish visual target (S2). To test this view, we varied the delay between S1 and S2 in conjunction with the modality of S1 (auditory or visual). For brief delays, responses to S2 were faster when S1 was auditory than when it was visual. Crucially, however, this intersensory facilitation effect disappeared after a simple correction for the difference in S1-detection time, equating the effective preparation period. The obtained audio-visual equivalence shows that sound speeds response to a visual target through preparation, not integration.